Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
IX B 43/14 Generato dall'IA

Non-admission of appeal for non-compliance with divergence requirement under § 115(2) FGO

Numero d'incarto IX B 43/14
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Spese processuali a carico del ricorrente / reclamante
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Court of Finance (BFH) dismissed the appellants' complaint for non-admission (Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde), meaning the lower tax court's decision remains in force and the appellants prevailed in no respect. The dispute involved a challenge to the material legal assessment of a specific tax case, where the appellants argued that the lower court had diverged from established BFH case law or violated procedural rules under § 96 of the Fiscal Courts Act (FGO). The BFH held that the complaint failed because the appellants did not plausibly demonstrate a divergence in principle (Divergenz) under § 115 (2) no. 2, 2nd alternative, FGO, merely expressing doubts that the lower court erred or misapplied higher court precedents does not constitute a valid ground for revision, nor was the alleged violation of § 96 FGO sufficiently substantiated.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 116 Abs. 5 Satz 2 2. Halbsatz FGO, § 135 Abs. 2 FGO; Non-admission of appeal for non-compliance with divergence requirement under § 115(2) FGO: The dispute involved a challenge to the material legal assessment of a specific tax case, where the appellants argued that the lower court had diverged from established BFH case law or violated procedural rules under § 96 of the Fiscal Courts Act (FGO). The BFH held that the complaint failed because the appellants did not plausibly demonstrate a divergence in principle (Divergenz) under § 115 (2) no. 2, 2nd alternative, FGO, merely expressing doubts that the lower court erred or misapplied higher court precedents does not constitute a valid ground for revision, nor was the alleged violation of § 96 FGO sufficiently substantiated.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
diritto tributario presupposto processuale tassazioni fiscali motivazione del mutamento giurisprudenza motivi che possono invocarsi accordo fiscale preliminare

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 116 Abs. 5 Satz 2 2. Halbsatz FGO
Justified the omission of a detailed legal reasoning in the decision.
§ 135 Abs. 2 FGO
Served as the basis for the cost allocation decision.
Generato dall'IA
IX B 72/12
Admissibility of divergence complaint under § 115 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 FGO for alleged misapplication of case law to specific facts
IX B 13/11
Admissibility of non-admission complaint: specific requirements for pleading divergence and necessity of legal development in separate assessment of loss carryforwards
III B 167/11
Admissibility of Divergence Ground: Exclusion of Non-Admission Rulings and Requirement of Abstract Legal Principle in Tax Declaration Interpretation
IX B 60/22
Non-admission of revision: admissibility requirements for alleging a divergence in tax litigation
I B 174/10
Admissibility of non-admission complaint: failure to substantiate divergence from case law and procedural right to be heard

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 116 Abs. 5 Satz 2 2. Halbsatz FGO

Justified the omission of a detailed legal reasoning in the decision.

§ 135 Abs. 2 FGO

Served as the basis for the cost allocation decision.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde - Darlegung einer Divergenz

[LEITSATZ]

NV: Angriffe gegen die materiell-rechtliche Richtigkeit auch unter Heranziehung einer etwaig nicht sachgerecht angewandten höchstrichterlichen Rechtsprechung können die Revisionszulassung nicht rechtfertigen.

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde hat keinen Erfolg. Der Sache nach wenden sich die Kläger und Beschwerdeführer (Kläger) gegen die materiell-rechtliche Würdigung des streitigen Einzelfalls seitens des Finanzgerichts (FG). Damit werden aber Zulassungsgründe i.S. von § 115 Abs. 2 der Finanzgerichtsordnung (FGO) nicht schlüssig dargelegt. Soweit sich die Kläger auf eine Verletzung von § 96 FGO berufen, fehlt jegliche Begründung.

Soweit die Kläger eine Divergenz zur Rechtsprechung des Bundesfinanzhofs (BFH) rügen (§ 115 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 2. Alternative FGO), ist die hierfür erforderliche Abweichung im Grundsätzlichen nicht allein mit dem Hinweis schlüssig dargetan, dass begründete Zweifel bestehen, dass das FG abweichend von der Rechtsprechung des BFH entschieden habe. Vielmehr wenden sich die Kläger damit lediglich gegen eine ihrer Meinung nach sachlich unrichtige, da in Außerachtlassung der höchstrichterlichen Rechtsprechung ergangene Entscheidung des FG. Indem die Kläger versuchen, den Einzelfall in abstrakte klärungsfähige Rechtsfragen zu fassen, kann dies ihrer Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde nicht zum Erfolg verhelfen, da es der Sache nach stets um die Einzelfallinterpretation des FG geht.

Von einer weiteren Begründung wird gemäß § 116 Abs. 5 Satz 2 2. Halbsatz FGO abgesehen.

Die Kostenentscheidung beruht auf § 135 Abs. 2 FGO.